Cablegate data, and response

See also WikiLeaks, WikiLeaks: List of mirror sites and Electronic attacks on WikiLeaks

This article has been split into separate sections to handle the large amount of information

• United States diplomatic cables WikiLeak
• Cablegate content: Americas, organisations and leaders
• Cablegate content: Europe
• Cablegate content: Middle East and North Africa
• Cablegate content: South Asia
• Cablegate content: East Asia and Oceania
• Cablegate data, and response

The United States diplomatic cables leak began on 28 November 2010 when the website WikiLeaks and five major newspapers published confidential documents of detailed correspondences between the U.S. State Department and its diplomatic missions around the world. The publication of the U.S. embassy cables is the third in a series of U.S. classified document "mega-leaks" distributed by WikiLeaks in 2010, following the Afghan War Diary in July, and the Iraq War Logs in October. The cables describe international affairs from 274 embassies dated from 1966–2010.

Release

On 28 November 2010, WikiLeaks began the release of the cables on its site, stating that "The embassy cables will be released in stages over the next few months. The subject matter of these cables is of such importance, and the geographical spread so broad, that to do otherwise would not do this material justice". The first batch of leaks comprised 243 cables. Further cables were subsequently made available on the WikiLeaks website.

Leaks release timetable

Number availableâ€	Number deleted	Time stamp	Source
243	≥ 0	19:07 GMT, 29 November
291	≥ 4	0:23 GMT, 1 December
486	≥ 2	17:00 GMT, 1 December
505	≥ 1	20:16 GMT, 1 December
607	≥ 1	5:07 GMT, 2 December
683	≥ 35	4:24 GMT, 3 December
842	≥ 4	14:09 GMT, 4 December
821	≥ 33	18:11 GMT, 4 December
837	≥ 36	10:16 GMT, 5 December
931	≥ 1	00:10 GMT, 6 December
926	≥ 6	14:24 GMT, 6 December
913	≥ 19	17:21 GMT, 6 December
960	≥ 22	08:06 GMT, 7 December
1060	≥ 17	21:46 GMT, 7 December

• † This number documents the number of cables released at the given time stamp.

Data security

According to The Guardian, all the diplomatic cables were marked "Sipdis", denoting "secret internet protocol distribution", which means they had been distributed via the closed U.S. SIPRNet, the U.S. Department of Defense’s classified version of the civilian internet. Though more than three million U.S. government personnel and soldiers have access to this network, "top secret" documents are not included in the system. Such a large quantity of secret information was available to a wide audience because, as The Guardian alleged, after the September 11 attacks an increased focus had been placed on sharing information since gaps in intra-governmental information sharing had been exposed. More specifically the diplomatic, military, law enforcement, and intelligence communities would be able to do their jobs better with this easy access to analytic and operative information. A spokesman said that in the previous weeks and months additional measures had been taken to improve the security of the system and prevent leaks.

Attacks on WikiLeaks

About an hour prior to the planned release of the initial documents, WikiLeaks announced it was experiencing a massive distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack, but vowed to still leak the cables and documents via pre-agreed prominent media outlets El País, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, The Guardian, and The New York Times.

According to Arbor Networks, an internet analyst group, the DDoS attack accounted for between two and four gigabits per second (Gbit/s) of additional traffic to the WikiLeaks host network, compared to an average traffic of between twelve and fifteen Gbit/s under ordinary conditions. The attack was slightly more powerful than ordinary DDoS attacks, though well below the maximum of 60 to 100 Gbit/s of other major attacks during 2010. The attack was claimed to have been carried out by a person by the name of "Jester", who describes himself as a "hacktivist". Jester took credit for the attack on Twitter, stating that WikiLeaks "threaten[ed] the lives of our troops and 'other assets.'"

On 2 December 2010, EveryDNS, a domain name registrar, dropped WikiLeaks from its entries, citing denial-of-service attacks (DDoS) that "threatened the stability of its infrastructure", but the site was still reachable at http://46.59.1.2 and http://213.251.145.96, as well as several other addresses.

Print media

The Guardian released its coverage of the leaked cables in numerous articles, including an interactive database, on 28 November. Der Spiegel also released its preliminary report, with extended coverage promised for the next day. Its cover for 29 November was also leaked with the initial report. The New York Times covered the story in a nine-part series spanning nine days, with the first story published simultaneously with the other outlets. The New York Times was not originally intended to receive the leak, allegedly due to their unflattering portrayal of the site's founder, but The Guardian decided to share coverage, citing earlier cooperation while covering the Afghan and Iraqi war logs. The Washington Post reported that it also requested permission to see the documents, but were rejected for undisclosed reasons. El País released its report saying there was an agreement between the newspapers for simultaneous publication of the "internationally relevant" documents, but that each newspaper was free to select and treat those documents that primarily relate to its own country.

The editor-in-chief of El País, Javier Moreno, stated that the release of the documents does not put the lives of anybody at risk and that the attacks on such a release of information to the general public are the same line of reaction seen in other leaks, such as the Pentagon Papers in 1973. He added that the only thing at risk here is the career of officials and diplomats within the compromised governments.

CNN was originally supposed to receive an advance copy of the documents as well, but did not after they refused to sign a confidentiality agreement with WikiLeaks. The Wall Street Journal also refused advance access, apparently for similar reasons as CNN.

Content removal

Wikileaks editors have not only been adding new files, but also deleting content from the website. Several cables disappeared. Most of them reappeared a few days later, sometimes in a different, redacted or unredacted version. The cable "10STATE17263, U.S.-Russia Joint Threat Assessment Talks" was missing from the WikiLeaks website for several days, then reappeared in a much truncated form, and was finally restored three days later.

Push-back by the U.S. government

Official efforts by the U.S. government to limit access to, conversation about, and general spread of the cables leaked by WikiLeaks were revealed by leading media organizations. A 4 December 2010 article by MSNBC, reported that the Obama administration has warned federal government employees and students in educational institutions studying towards careers in public service that they must refrain from downloading or linking to any WikiLeaks documents. According to a 3 December 2010 article in The Guardian, access to WikiLeaks has been blocked for federal workers. The U.S. Library of Congress, the U.S. Commerce Department and other government agencies have confirmed that the ban is already in place.

A spokesman for Columbia University confirmed on 4 December that its Office of Career Services sent an e-mail warning students at the School of International and Public Affairs to refrain from accessing WikiLeaks cables and discussing this subject on the grounds that "discourse about the documents would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information". However, this was quickly retracted on the following day. The SIPA Dean, John H. Coatsworth, wrote that “Freedom of information and expression is a core value of our institution, [...] thus, SIPA’s position is that students have a right to discuss and debate any information in the public arena that they deem relevant to their studies or to their roles as global citizens, and to do so without fear of adverse consequences.”

Hosting and financing issues

Amazon.com removed WikiLeaks from its servers on 1 December 2010 at 19:30 GMT, and the latter website was unreachable until 20:17 GMT when the site had defaulted to its Swedish servers, hosted by Bahnhof. U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman, among the members of the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee who had questioned Amazon in private communication on the company's hosting of Wikileaks and the "illegally" obtained documents, commended Amazon for the action; WikiLeaks, however, responded by stating on its official Twitter page that "WikiLeaks servers at Amazon ousted. Free speech the land of the free--fine our $ are now spent to employ people in Europe", and later that "If Amazon are so uncomfortable with the first amendment, they should get out of the business of selling books".

On 4 December, Paypal cut off the account used by WikiLeaks to collect donations. On 6 December, the Swiss bank PostFinance announced that it had frozen the assets of Assange; on the same day, MasterCard stopped payments to WikiLeaks, with VISA following them on 7 December.

Content

See links to additional articles listed at top of page

The contents of the U.S. diplomatic cables leak describe in detail events and incidents surrounding international affairs from 274 embassies dating from 28 December 1966 to 28 February 2010. The diplomatic cables revealed numerous unguarded comments and revelations: critiques and praises about the host countries of various US embassies, discussion and resolutions towards ending ongoing tension in the Middle East, efforts and resistance towards nuclear disarmament, actions in the War on Terror, assessments of other threats around the world, dealings between various countries, U.S. intelligence and counterintelligence efforts, and other diplomatic actions.

Security issue claims and counter-claims

Before releasing the list of December 6, a cable from the US State Department sent in February 2009 listing installations and infrastructure worldwide that it considered critical to protect US interests from terrorists, WikiLeaks had deliberately removed details of names and locations, but much was still revealed. The list does not include any military facilities. In the cable the State Department requests American diplomats to identify installations overseas "whose loss could critically impact the public health, economic security, and/or national and homeland security of the United States." The order was under the direction of the Department for Homeland Security in co-ordination with the Department of State. It is likely that officials included installations on the list that they would not have, pre-Twin Towers Attack. However, it includes facilities that it is claimed are so key to the global supply chain and global communications, as well as goods and services important to the US and its economy, that attacking those facilities could disrupt those activities.

These are noted excerpts from the list:

• Submarine communications cables
  • across the Pacific Ocean to New Zealand, Australia, China and other US allies in Asia.
  • across the Atlantic Ocean, particularly those from the United Kingdom and Ireland northwards.
• Major port hubs, particularly in China, Japan and South Korea.
• Critical sea lanes, such as the Straits of Hormuz, the Panama Canal and the Straits of Malacca.
  • Notably, the Bosphorus Strait is missing from this list reflecting changes in the global strategic map.
• The Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline as well as many other strategic pipelines criss-crossing Eurasia.
  • In connection to these pipelines also Georgia, Azerbaijan and Belarus are on the list.
• Mines that produce rare earth and other much-needed metals, especially in South Africa and Australia.
  • Several underwater pipelines are listed in Japan, China and Britain.
• A long list of pharmaceutical facilities in Europe.
• Ostensibly missing are also civil nuclear power plants outside of the United States.
• Dams close to the U.S. border.

The publishing of this particular cable which had been classified secret and not for review by non-U.S. personnel, has been followed by strong criticism. US State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the disclosure was "gives a group like al-Qaeda a targeting list." Also British prime minister David Cameron stated that the list was damaging to the national security of both his country and the United States, "and elsewhere". WikiLeaks spokeswoman Kristinn Hrafnsson said with reference to the cable: "This further undermines claims made by the US Government that its embassy officials do not play an intelligence-gathering role. Part of the cable read: "Posts are not/not being asked to consult with host governments with respect to this request."

Reactions

See Wikipedia:Reactions to the United States diplomatic cables leak

Many governments said the leaks could damage diplomatic relationships between countries and put people at risk. U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton condemned the leak as an attack not just on the U.S. but on all governments:

Let's be clear: This disclosure is not just an attack on America's foreign policy interests. It is an attack on the international community, the alliances and partnerships, the conversations and negotiations that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity. Now, I'm aware that some may mistakenly applaud those responsible, so I want to set the record straight. There is nothing laudable about endangering innocent people, and there is nothing brave about sabotaging the peaceful relations between nations.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) criticized the overclassification of information that should otherwise be available to the public for discussion. The ACLU called on President Obama to "recommit to the ideals of transparency he invoked at the beginning of his presidency. The American public should not have to depend on leaks to the news media and on whistleblowers to know what the government is up to." Ben Wizner, Litigation Director of the ACLU National Security Project, issued a statement about the Khalid El-Masri cable leak revelations, calling for public accountability and the strengthening of the rule of law and democracy in the United States.

In the wake of the leak, politicians called for action. U.S. Congressman Peter T. King proposed designating WikiLeaks as a terrorist organization, and Julian Assange became a target of repeated attacks and incitements to violence. According to Assange:

I have been accused of treason, even though I am an Australian, not a US, citizen. There have been dozens of serious calls in the US for me to be "taken out" by US special forces. Sarah Palin says I should be "hunted down like Osama bin Laden", a Republican bill sits before the US Senate seeking to have me declared a "transnational threat" and disposed of accordingly. An adviser to the Canadian Prime Minister's office has called on national television for me to be assassinated. An American blogger has called for my 20-year-old son, here in Australia, to be kidnapped and harmed for no other reason than to get at me.

Reporters Without Borders raised concerns over the extreme comments made by American authorities concerning WikiLeaks and its founder Assange. It issued a statement saying that "this is the first time we have seen an attempt at the international community level to censor a website dedicated to the principle of transparency. We are shocked to find countries such as France and the United States suddenly bringing their policies on freedom of expression into line with those of China." The group also condemned the subsequent blocking and the massive distributed denial-of-service attack on the WikiLeaks website.